“A few years ago when we presented our research… people would just stare at us blankly,” Andy recalled.

But now, several years and publications later, the skeptical tone has changed. During a presentation at the 2010 AAAR conference in San Diego, audience members seemed encouraged by what they saw.

Andy and Ben are two members of a group of Carnegie Mellon scientists who have spent years trying to fill a big blind spot in atmospheric modeling.

Historically, most models of atmospheric air pollution significantly underestimated the amount of a specific kind of particle, called secondary organic aerosol (SOA).

“What we actually observe in the atmosphere is a factor of 3 – 100 times more than the SOA traditional models predict,” Grieshop explained.

This means that the information used by scientists and policymakers to make important pollution control decisions is not representing everything that people breathe.

According to Grieshop and Murphy, the traditional models overlook some key reactions and processes that take place as particles age and transform in the atmosphere. Most people do not breathe particles emitted directly from a tail pipe, they explained. People breathe in particles that have spent time in the air, moving and reacting with other chemicals.

“When particles dilute, evaporate and then condense back to particles, a lot about them changes,” Murphy said.

I agree Al. The pollution should be stopped at it’s source. How about the lingering jet contrail pollution. I have jets spray over my house daily and I have to tell you…it is very depressing having very little sunlight as well as increasing Respitory and other health issues such as Cancer. In Victoria BC Canada…we are now starting to have Cancer Hotle Resorts for family of the Sick. We have a whole New Cancer Wing too. How far are people willing to take things to make Money…and have a ‘Career’. Appaling.

If Andy and Ben presented their research, its said to us that AAAR 2010 contained airmultidiscipline science, so can add resources of environmental protection. This done sure to collect and next time by comprehensive acts, can make solve our planets.

This is the type of work that can lead to properly placed, effective regulation. If the SOA are shown to have significant health impacts and we can identify the sources of the constituents that contribute to their formation, we can focus efforts on controlling the right sources. Further, if the health impacts can be quantified, the SOA can be compared to other pollutants and EPA can make informed decisions on where to place resources and to spend budget dollars for the greatest benfit. Budgets will surely be squeezed as the enormous deficit our government has heaped on us begins to take its toll. EPA will need to pick and choose what to regulate, and I am hopeful that the decisions will be science based, rational, and represent tax dollars well spent. Repeat the mantra, “SCIENCE RULES, SCIENCE RULES, SCIENCE RULES …” Good work Ben and Andy. Work such as your’s can contribute to good decision making. It’s up to EPA leadership to be good stewards of our science and our dollars.

Dear Sirs,
Hasn’t anyone besides me noticed long strands of clear nasal
drainage coming from my nose the past couple of years .
I told my mother , elderly , that this is the effects of carbon in the
atmosphere. I live in a rural area.